More and exciting Landmark Supreme Court Cases

1. More and exciting Landmark Supreme Court Cases • 2.05 and 2.06 combined: • Tests of federal supremacy and guarantees and protections of individual liberties and freedoms

2. Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 • Facts • In 1892, Plessy purchased a first class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway, from New Orleans toCovington, Louisiana. Plessy, who was of racially mixed descent (one-eighth black and seven-eighths Caucasian), was a United States citizen and a resident of the state of Louisiana. Whenhe entered the train, he took a seat in the coach where only whites were permitted to sit. He wastold by the conductor to leave the coach and to find another seat on the train where non-whites werepermitted to sit. Plessy did not move and was ejected by force from the train. Plessy was sentto jail for violating the Louisiana Act of 1890, which required railway companies to provide “separatebut equal” accommodations for white and black races. Plessy argued that this law wasunconstitutional.

3. Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 • Issue • Whether laws which provided for the separation of races violated the rights of blacks as guaranteedby the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. • Opinion • The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Louisiana Act, which stated that “all railwaycompanies were to provide equal but separate accommodations for white and black races” did notviolate the Constitution. This law did not take away from the federal authority to regulate interstatecommerce, nor did it violate the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. Additionally, thelaw did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave all blacks citizenship, and forbadestates from passing any laws which would deprive blacks of their constitutional rights. The Courtbelieved that “separate but equal” was the most reasonable approach considering the socialprejudices which prevailed at the time. • [The Plessy doctrine of “separate but equal” was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education ofTopeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (see p. 24), which held “separate but equal” to be unconstitutional.]

4. Korematsu v. United States 1944 • Facts • Between 1941 and 1945, there were strong anti-Japanese feelings in the United States due to the war with Japan. In May 1942, Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in federal court of “knowingly remaining in a designated military area in San Leandro, California.” His actions violated Exclusion Order #34 and Executive Order #9066 of 1942, which had been issued to protect the West Coast from acts of espionage and sabotage. The Acts required all Japanese-Americans living in restricted areas to go to inland relocation centers. Korematsu believed the order violated his constitutional rights. • Issue • Whether Executive Order #9066 of 1942, violated Korematsu’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law and his Fifth Amendment right to life, liberty, and property; and whether, because of the special circumstance of the world war, Congress or the President had the power to violate Korematsu’s constitutional rights.

5. Korematsu v. United States 1944 • Opinion • In a rare decision, 6-3, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that an entire race could be labeled a “suspect classification,” meaning that the government was permitted to deny the Japanese their constitutional rights because of military considerations. Because a number of Japanese may have been disloyal, the military felt that complete exclusion of persons of Japanese ancestry from certain areas was essential during wartime. The Court ruled that such exclusion was not beyond the war powers of Congress and the President since their interest in national security was “compelling.”

6. Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas 1954 • Facts • Four black children sought the aid of the courts to be admitted to the all-white public schools in their community after having been denied admission under laws which permitted racial segregation. The youths alleged that these laws deprived them of the equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though their all-black schools were equal to the all-white schools with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other “tangible” factors.

7. Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas 1954 • Issue • Whether segregation of children in public schools denies blacks their Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection under the law. • Opinion • The Supreme Court of the United States looked not to the “tangible” factors but the effect of segregation itself on public education. The Court decided unanimously that segregation of black children in the public school system was a direct violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It rejected the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 164 U.S. 537 (1896), and stated that this doctrine had no place in education. According to the Court, even if the facilities were physically equal, the children of the minority group would still receive an inferior education. Separate educational facilities were held to be “inherently unequal.”

8. Mapp v. Ohio 1961 • Facts • In May 1957, Cleveland police officers received a tip that Miss Mapp was in possession of a large number of betting slips, and that a bomber was hiding in her home. When the police arrived at her house, Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. A few hours later, the police knocked again, then forcibly opened the door. A struggle ensued and Mapp was put in handcuffs, taken upstairs, and kept there while police searched her apartment. During the search, obscene materials were discovered in a trunk in her basement. Mapp was arrested for possession and control of obscene materials.

9. Mapp v. Ohio 1961 • Issue • Whether Miss Mapp’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search and seizure was violated during the search of her home. • Opinion • The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Mapp’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search and seizure was violated. The Court held that both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protected persons from unwarranted federal and state intrusion of their private property.

10. Miranda v. Arizona 1966 • Facts • Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. His conviction was based in part on incriminating statements he made to the police while they interrogated him. At no time during the questioning did the police inform Miranda that he did not have to talk to them or that he had the right to a lawyer when being questioned by police.

11. Miranda v. Arizona 1966 • Issue • Whether the state of Arizona violated the constitutional rights of Miranda under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they interrogated him without advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent. • Opinion • The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the police were in error. The Court held that the police must inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel before the police may begin to question those held in custody.   • [Miranda established the “Miranda Warning” which police now use prior to interrogation of persons arrested.]

12. New Jersey v. TLO 1985 • Facts • In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School, New Jersey, discovered two girls smoking in the lavatory. Since smoking was a violation of a school rule, the two students, T.L.O. and a companion, were taken to the principal’s office. There they met with the assistant vice-principal who demanded to see T.L.O.’s purse. Upon opening the purse, he found cigarettes and cigarette rolling paper. He proceeded to look through the purse and found marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, money, lists of names, and two letters that implicated her in drug dealing. T.L.O. argued the search of her purse was unconstitutional.

13. New Jersey v. TLO 1985 • Issue • Whether the state of New Jersey and its agent, the assistant vice-principal, violated T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment right of protection from “unreasonable search,” her Fifth Amendment right of protection from self-incrimination, and her right to due process as provided in the Fourteenth Amendment. • Opinion • The Supreme Court of the United States held for the school and its assistant vice-principal. The Court reasoned that to maintain discipline in school, the school officials who have “reasonable suspicion” that a student has done something wrong can conduct a reasonable search of the suspicious student. A school’s main objective is to educate students in a legal, safe learning environment. Police need “probable cause,” a higher standard, to search people, places, and things. School officials, unlike the police, need only “reasonable suspicion” to search students when they believe unlawful conduct is occurring

14. Texas v. Johnson 1989 • Facts • In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall. He burned the flag as a means of protest against the policies of President Ronald Reagan’s Administration. Under Texas law desecration of the American flag is a criminal offense. Mr. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine.

15. Texas v. Johnson 1989 • Issue • Does a law against desecration of the American flag violate an individual’s right to freedom of speech as found in the First Amendment? • Opinion • In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court of the United States found that desecrating the flag as an act of protest is an act of expression, an act protected by the First Amendment. The Court found that burning the American flag was political speech which Justice Brennan wrote “...is the bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment. Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

16. Engel v. Vitale 1962 • Facts • The Board of Education of New Hyde Park, New York, instructed the schools of their district to have students recite a NYS Regents-composed prayer at the beginning of each school day. Parents of a number of students challenged this policy. They said that the official prayer was contrary to their religious beliefs and that a governmental agency did not have the right to force prayer on students. The parents felt that the prayer violated the First Amendment’s separation of church and state provision. The state contended that it was a non-denominational prayer and that the schools did not compel any student to recite it.

17. Engel v. Vitale 1962 • Issue • Whether a non-denominational prayer, recited in every classroom in a school district, violated the First Amendment’s provision for separation of church and state. • Opinion • The Supreme Court of the United States found that the school district violated the students’ First Amendment rights because even though the students did not have to say the prayer, the reciting of the prayer in class would put unwanted pressures on them. Further, this non-denominational prayer was found to be too religious for the state to mandate and was in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

18. Leandro v. NC 1997 • Background • In 1994, a lawsuit was filed against the State of North Carolina by parents, children and school districts in five low-wealth rural counties (Hoke, Halifax, Robeson, Vance and Cumberland). The Plaintiffs (including the Leandro family) argued that, despite higher than average tax rates, schools in these counties ended up with lower than average tax revenues. This meant that these school districts did not have enough money to provide an equal education for their children. For example, they could not compete with wealthier school districts in terms of teacher pay, special services or educational materials.

19. Leandro v. NC 1997 • A number of urban school districts were allowed to intervene in the Leandro lawsuit. They raised a second and equally important issue. They claimed that their schools were burdened with large numbers and heavy concentrations of disadvantaged and more-costly-to-educate students. Therefore, they argued that the State Constitution requires North Carolina to provide schools anywhere in the state with "adequate" resources to fully educate disadvantaged - that is, poor, special education and Limited English Proficient -- students.

20. Leandro v. NC 1997 • A unanimous Court stated that neither school districts nor counties have any constitutional right to equal funding. But the Court went on to rule that children - indeed, all children residing in North Carolina - have a fundamental state constitutional right to the "equal opportunity to receive a sound basic education." • Of equal significance, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of North Carolina, not local school districts, has the ultimate constitutional obligation to actively safeguard and successfully deliver every child's Leandro right. No exceptions. No excuses.